The histopathological diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2,3 (CIN 2,3) is subjective and prone to variability. In our study, we analyzed the impact of utilizing a biomarker (p16 INK4A ) together with histopathology to refine the ''gold standard'' utilized for evaluating the performance of 3 different cervical cancer screening tests: cervical cytology, human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). Cervical biopsies from 2 South African cervical cancer screening studies originally diagnosed by a single pathologist were reevaluated by a second pathologist and a consensus pathology diagnosis obtained. Immunohistochemical staining for p16 INK4A was then performed. The estimated sensitivity of some cervical cancer screening tests was markedly impacted by the criteria utilized to define CIN 2,3. Use of routine histopathology markedly underestimated the sensitivity of both conventional cytology and HPV DNA testing compared to an improved gold standard of consensus pathology and p16 INK4A positivity. In contrast, routine histopathology overestimated the sensitivity of VIA. Our results demonstrate that refining the diagnosis of CIN 2,3 through the use of consensus pathology and immunohistochemical staining for p16 INK4A has an important impact on measurement of the performance of cervical cancer screening tests. The sensitivity of screening tests such as HPV DNA testing and conventional cytology may be underestimated when an imperfect gold standard (routine histopathology) is used. In contrast, the sensitivity of other tests, such as VIA, may be overestimated with an imperfect gold standard. ' 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Key words: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; p16 immunohistochemistryThe histolopathologic interpretation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is subjective and prone to considerable variation. This is documented by numerous studies investigating intraobserver and interobserver variability among groups of pathologists evaluating cervical biopsies. [1][2][3][4] In general, agreement between pathologists is excellent for invasive lesions, moderately good for CIN 3 and poor for CIN 1 and CIN 2. 3 This results in marked difficulties in separating normal biopsies from CIN 1 and in distinguishing between CIN 1 and CIN 2,3 based on histopathology alone. 4 Recognition of this variability has led to concerted efforts to identify novel biomarkers capable of more reproducibly distinguishing between normal and CIN lesions and in reducing the variability in grading of CIN lesions. A number of potentially diagnostically useful biomarkers have been identified using conventional immunohistochemical approaches and tissue microarrays. 5-9 These include altered expression of selected MHC antigens; increased expression of Ki-67, telomerase and desmogleins and reduced expression of nm23-H1, a candidate tumor suppressor gene. [10][11][12][13][14] One of the more promising biomarkers is p16 INK4A , a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor involved in control of the cell ...